Second Amendment outrage du Jourby Stephen Gordon
Unlike cockroaches, there is one sort of vermin which scurries into the open when light is shined upon them: anti-gun nuts. Every time there is some gun-related tragedy or some nutball starts shooting at innocent folks, there’s always some new call to ban guns, or at least make them more difficult to obtain. Here’s the latest example from ABC News:
While the Constitution protects Americans’ right to own guns, do laws make it too easy for potentially dangerous people to own firearms?
Perhaps one should be grateful that someone in the MSM actually acknowledged a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, but the underlying question still serves the goals of the folks who would strip away one of our more important rights.
A deluded person may honestly wish to ban everything dangerous in the world. To be sure, I’d (and most anyone with a modicum of common sense) would disagree, but it would be a reasonable debate. However, covert sentences (like the one above) slipped into a news piece need to be challenged.
When journalists start trying to ban cars every time there is some tragic car accident, or ban trains every time one derails and kills a lot of people, or ban planes whenever one crashes — I’ll believe that they are being honest (but wrong) with their argument. In the meantime, it’s up to us to challenge each and every case of gun-grabber propaganda we run across.
UPDATE: USA Today has a Second Amendment poll operational right now. At this time, 96 percent of the 1.67 million voters think the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to bear arms. I voted yes because a I know what they mean. However, I’ll argue that individuals have the natural right to bear arms and the Second Amendment only confirms it. It would be nice of members of the media actually understood a bit more about what they write.